Landmark Environmental Law Put On Hold (California)

Landmark Environmental Law Put On Hold
Governor Says There Isn't Enough Money To Fund Project

MONTEREY, Calif. -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is putting a landmark environmental law on hold, saying there isn't enough money to continue funding the project.

The legislation is known as the Marine Preservation Life Act. It requires the state to create more marine reserves off the California coastline by 2005. The law was passed in 1999 under the Clinton administration as a way to preserve endangered fish in California waters.

Many marine biologists Action News spoke with Tuesday said they're enraged by the governor's action, calling it a major setback. But fishing groups are happy over the action. Had the law gone into effect, fishermen would not be able to fish in the newly created marine reserves. They have been fighting the law, saying it's too restrictive and would devastate the seafood economy.

Environmentalists are disappointed the governor stopped the program before it really began. Schwarzenegger is able to do so because the state doesn't have an extra $2 million to continue funding the program.

Both environmentalists and fishing groups said they want to co-exist out on the waters. They're currently in discussions and working toward some type of compromise.

Here's the Merc News version. I saw this someplace else too today, I'll if I can find and post it later if I can't find it tonight.

State to hit pause on plan for no-fishing zones

By Ken McLaughlin and Paul Rogers

In a major shift in environmental policy, the administration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided to put on ``indefinite hold'' a landmark plan to create a network of marine reserves off California's coast designed to restore collapsing marine species, the Mercury News has learned.

The plan, which could have put up to 20 percent of state waters off limits to fishing, was required by a 1999 state law. It has been cited by marine biologists as a national model -- and perhaps the best hope of arresting the steady decline of dozens of types of fish in California waters.

Monday, Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman said the California Department of Fish and Game chose to halt the process and disband seven ``working groups'' of scientists, environmentalists, fishing industry representatives and others -- a decision he supports -- because the state lacks the $2 million to finish the plan by a Jan. 1, 2005, deadline.

``This is not about supporting the program,'' Chrisman said. ``It is about simply not having enough staff or money to do the job right.''

He emphasized the department -- expected to make an official announcement today -- will restart the process when it has the resources.

Marine scientists and environmentalists greeted the decision with disappointment and anger. Several major studies, including a 2001 report by the National Academy of Sciences, have recommended marine reserves as a key tool in restoring depleted ocean species.

``Just because the state can't provide the gold-plated Cadillac version doesn't mean they should abandon their responsibility to implement state law,'' said Warner Chabot, vice president of the Ocean Conservancy in San Francisco. ``The governor promised creative thinking and protection of resources. This is not an example of either.''

Existing reserves

Department officials said the decision had nothing to do with the change in administrations. Research will continue on existing reserves, including a newly established network off the Channel Islands, officials said. Currently, less than 1 percent of California's ocean waters have been declared no-fishing reserves.

Establishing ocean reserves was mandated by a 1999 law sponsored by then-Assemblyman Kevin Shelley, D-San Francisco, now the secretary of state.

``It is unfortunate that Fish and Game would eliminate the program before it began,'' Shelley said Monday.

Chrisman, a Visalia farmer appointed two months ago by Schwarzenegger, said the department concluded it would cost $1.7 million to $2.3 million to complete a draft plan this year.

Under Schwarzenegger's proposed budget unveiled Friday, the Department of Fish and Game would receive $271.1 million next year -- a drop of $2.8 million, or about 1 percent, from this year.

What really hurts, said Sonke Mastrup, acting Fish and Game director, is that the department has lost so much brain power in the marine division because it's unable to replace senior scientists who have retired.

``Our marine region has so many mandates and responsibilities that something had to give,'' Mastrup said.

Davis official critical

As a member of California's Fish and Game Commission, Chrisman voted in October 2002 against creating the landmark series of no-fishing zones off the Channel Islands. The vote passed 3-2, however, and the reserves became official in April.

The top environmental official for former Gov. Gray Davis, who was recalled Oct. 7 in favor of Schwarzenegger, said she disagrees with the decision.

``I hope the administration reconsiders,'' said Mary Nichols, former resources secretary. ``The longer we wait, the harder it will be to have these reserves fulfill their promise.''

Battered by tight budgets, Fish and Game officials tried to kill the controversial program during Davis' tenure, Nichols said, but she refused to allow it.

``It became clear the department did not have the will or the capacity to put this program together,'' said Nichols, now a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles. ``I'm not surprised the department is using the budget as the rationale for stopping the program.''

Asked whether the Davis administration supported ocean conservation more than the Schwarzenegger administration does, Chrisman said: ``That's not fair. We're disappointed. We just need a little breathing room until we figure out a way to get more staff and funding.''

Fishermen respond

Bob Strickland, president of the United Anglers of California, said he thought the department's decision was sound.

``We've been telling them that for a year that they don't have the time and money to do this,'' said Strickland, whose group represents recreational fishermen. ``Poaching is the No. 2 illegal thing in California,'' after drugs -- and the department needs to concentrate more on enforcement, he said.

But reaction in the fishing community was not unanimous.

Zeke Grader, executive director of the San Francisco-based Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, said many of his colleagues have come around to the notion that the reserves are a good idea as long as fishermen are involved in the process. ``There are the hard heads who don't want to lose one square inch of the oceans,'' Grader said.

Researchers were dismayed by the decision.

``We think this is a terrible idea,'' said Chris Harrold, director of research and conservation at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. ``Marine reserves can be a very effective way to protect marine resources beyond the way we are protecting them now.''

Harrold said marine biologists from around the nation have been watching California to see where the reserves would be located and how quickly fish species would rebound if kept off limits to fishing.

The creation of marine reserves was a key recommendation of the Pew Oceans Commission chaired by Leon Panetta, former chief of staff in the Clinton administration.

``I guess I understand the budget restraints they're under, but it's regrettable because our oceans and fisheries are going to pay a heck of a price,'' Panetta said.

Others hope that Fish and Game officials will resurrect the process sooner rather than later.

``Everybody knows they are broke,'' said Steve Palumbi, a marine biologist with Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station. ``But this is sort of like not making a car payment because you can't afford the stamp.''

FRom the FResno Bee...AP/Don Thompson

California budget woes stall plan for coastal marine reserves

SACRAMENTO (AP) - California's budget woes have stalled plans to create an 1,100-mile necklace of coastal marine reserves that had been expected to serve as a national model, state officials said Tuesday.

Planning for the reserves is required by a 1999 law, but wildlife officials said the state can't afford the estimated $1.7 million to $2.3 million it would take to complete planning by the Jan. 1, 2005, deadline. The state's hiring freeze also has sapped about a third of the Department of Fish and Game's technical staff with no ability to replace them, officials said.

Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman said he is soliciting private contributions to proceed, something environmental groups said they have been pushing since delays first surfaced nearly a year ago.

The reserve plan could put up to a fifth of state coastal waters off-limits to fishing, prompting sharp protests from commercial and charter fishermen who fear for their livelihood.

"This is a model nationally for bringing back endangered ecosystems," said Richard Charter, a marine conservation advocate with Environmental Defense.

Scientists and environmentalists say California needs to create more reserves to join the 12 created last year around the Channel Islands. The state already had a network of more than 100 other tiny reserves, though the "hodgepodge" of reserves with conflicting fishing limits means "they've been pretty ineffective up to this point," said department spokeswoman Chamois Andersen.

The department will continue reorganizing rules for those reserves and conducting research about the effects of the Channel Islands reserves while it waits for money to study the new reserves, Andersen said.

Planning was halted last February when the depth of California's deficit problem became apparent, Andersen said. The department canceled a series of meetings by 150 representatives of fishing, environmental and coastal communities, then followed with another letter Tuesday announcing the delay is now indefinite.

State lawmakers already had approved a two-year delay from the original Jan. 1, 2003, deadline; the department will ask for an additional delay, Andersen said.

But Chrisman said he's nearing agreement with private groups for funding to resume the planning. Chrisman was the lone vote against the Channel Islands reserve as a member of the California Fish and Game Commission, but said he opposed the proposed configuration and not the concept.

Warner Chabot, vice president of The Ocean Conservancy, said environmental groups met with Chrisman two weeks ago to urge him to seek private financing to augment dwindling state funds and staff to keep planning proceeding.

"We do the Volkswagen version instead of the Cadillac version," Chabot suggested. "We refuse to accept that the solution is to stop the process completely and indefinitely."

Scientists projected that as much as 20 percent of the state's 1,100 miles of coastal waters might deserve protection. But Andersen said the actual reserves would result from consensus among the 150 representatives assigned to seven subgroups that divided up the state's coastline.

About half the current reserves ban fishing entirely, but that amounts to less than 1 percent of the coastal waters aside from the Channel Islands reserves, she said.

Before planning was halted last year, the department hosted 10 public hearings that drew 2,500 people and a subsequent 3,000 written comments.

---

On the Net:

Read public comments on the reserve plan at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/comments.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.